Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 10-12-2002, 09:24 PM

This is a foreward from an email list I'm on.
-------------------------------------------
Here is what the IDers are trying to push in Ohio's science
standards, we may see the same in Cobb:

Grade 10, Life Sciences (Evolution Theory). Discuss how
various types of scientific evidence may either support or not support the theory of descent with modification from a common ancestry (e.g., embryological development in vertebrate classes, fossil progression, biogeographical distribution, homologies, vestigial structures, biological complexity, biological information). (NOTE: The consideration of alternative theories, such as intelligent design, is permitted - but not required - under this standard.)

Grade 10, Scientific Ways of Knowing (The Nature of Scientific Inquiry) #3. Recognize that scientific knowledge is limited to explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions. There is disagreement as to whether scientific inquiry should consider all logical explanations for phenomena, or whether inquiry should be limited to naturalistic (materialistic) explanations.

Bane · 10-12-2002, 11:03 PM

Quote:

There is disagreement as to whether scientific inquiry should consider all logical explanations for phenomena, or whether inquiry should be limited to naturalistic (materialistic) explanations.

Science will be so much easier with the "goddidit" theory.

Albion · 10-12-2002, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Discuss how
various types of scientific evidence may either support or not support the theory of descent with modification from a common ancestry

What a bunch of bloody nonsense. Scientific evidence may not support the notion that natural selection is the only mechanism used, but the theory of descent with modification? Are they saying there's scientific evidence that descent with modification may not exist? In which universe?

Quote:

There is disagreement as to whether scientific inquiry should consider all logical explanations for phenomena, or whether inquiry should be limited to naturalistic (materialistic) explanations.

Not among scientists, there isn't. What's logical about shoehorning supernatural entities into science class? As long as they're talking about changing the nature of science itself, science class isn't the place for it. We've heard this bit of nonsense so much it's getting very tedious.

Liquidrage · 10-13-2002, 06:38 AM

How many accredited colleges teach ID as a scientific theory?

I am all for alternative theories being taught in school. The theories need to be scientifically valid however.
The problem that I see it is these people believe that ID is a valid alternative theory. It is going to take a strong alliance at the university level to stop these attacks on education.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Feather · 10-13-2002, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>This is a foreward from an email list I'm on.
-------------------------------------------
Here is what the IDers are trying to push in Ohio's science
standards, we may see the same in Cobb:

Grade 10, Life Sciences (Evolution Theory). Discuss how
various types of scientific evidence may either support or not support the theory of descent with modification from a common ancestry (e.g., embryological development in vertebrate classes, fossil progression, biogeographical distribution, homologies, vestigial structures, biological complexity, biological information). (NOTE: The consideration of alternative theories, such as intelligent design, is permitted - but not required - under this standard.)

Grade 10, Scientific Ways of Knowing (The Nature of Scientific Inquiry) #3. Recognize that scientific knowledge is limited to explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions. There is disagreement as to whether scientific inquiry should consider all logical explanations for phenomena, or whether inquiry should be limited to naturalistic (materialistic) explanations.</strong>

Damnit. They will never stop. This is a perfect example why intelligent people need to keep fighting the aggressive Religious elements of society.

Damned idiot creationists.

Coragyps · 10-14-2002, 11:42 AM

Mixed results? It certainly could be worse.<a href="http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/1718144/detail.html" target="_blank">News release</a>.

Blinn · 10-14-2002, 11:47 AM

The standards committee of the the Ohio School board will not include ID in the new science standards, only evolution...

<a href="http://www.onnnews.com/onnweb/fullstory.php?record=19875" target="_blank">article</a>

"...although teachers are encouraged to examine other life concepts based on scientific evidence." This bothers me, in that it implies there is scientific evidence for other "life concepts" and that despite the lack of it, certain teachers will suggest that there is.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

Albion · 10-14-2002, 12:51 PM

I'm glad to see that some of these newspapers are understanding that intelligent design is another form of creationism, not another form of science.

10-12-2002, 09:24 PM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	ID attack on Ohio Science standards This is a foreward from an email list I'm on. ------------------------------------------- Here is what the IDers are trying to push in Ohio's science standards, we may see the same in Cobb: Grade 10, Life Sciences (Evolution Theory). Discuss how various types of scientific evidence may either support or not support the theory of descent with modification from a common ancestry (e.g., embryological development in vertebrate classes, fossil progression, biogeographical distribution, homologies, vestigial structures, biological complexity, biological information). (NOTE: The consideration of alternative theories, such as intelligent design, is permitted - but not required - under this standard.) Grade 10, Scientific Ways of Knowing (The Nature of Scientific Inquiry) #3. Recognize that scientific knowledge is limited to explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions. There is disagreement as to whether scientific inquiry should consider all logical explanations for phenomena, or whether inquiry should be limited to naturalistic (materialistic) explanations.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2002, 06:38 AM	#4
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	How many accredited colleges teach ID as a scientific theory? I am all for alternative theories being taught in school. The theories need to be scientifically valid however. The problem that I see it is these people believe that ID is a valid alternative theory. It is going to take a strong alliance at the university level to stop these attacks on education. [ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

10-14-2002, 11:42 AM	#6
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Mixed results? It certainly could be worse.<a href="http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/1718144/detail.html" target="_blank">News release</a>.

10-14-2002, 11:47 AM	#7
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	The standards committee of the the Ohio School board will not include ID in the new science standards, only evolution... <a href="http://www.onnnews.com/onnweb/fullstory.php?record=19875" target="_blank">article</a> "...although teachers are encouraged to examine other life concepts based on scientific evidence." This bothers me, in that it implies there is scientific evidence for other "life concepts" and that despite the lack of it, certain teachers will suggest that there is. [ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

10-14-2002, 12:51 PM	#8
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	I'm glad to see that some of these newspapers are understanding that intelligent design is another form of creationism, not another form of science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.